The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the collection of penalty under Article 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment is discretionary, whether or not to collect the penalty shall be left to the court's discretion, even if the property meets the requirements for the collection of penalty.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451 Decided June 14, 2007, etc.). The Defendant’s crime of this case constitutes an offense falling under Article 94(1)1 and Article 4 subparag. 2 of the Food Sanitation Act, and the Defendant’s sale price of 108,90km, which is a food where the Defendant is or is likely to be exposed to radioactive elements, constitutes the criminal proceeds or the property derived from criminal proceeds under Article 10(1) and Article 8(1)1 or 2 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and thus, is subject to voluntary collection.

Even if the lower court did not sentence additional collection from the Defendant, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, while the prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below, there is no entry of the grounds of objection in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.